Republic vs CA and Castro

Republic vs. CA and Castro

GR No. 103047, September 12, 1994

FACTS:

Angelina Castro, with her parents unaware, contracted a civil

marriage with Edwin Cardenas. They did not immediately live
together and it was only upon Castro found out that she was
pregnant that they decided to live together wherein the said
cohabitation lasted for only 4 months. Thereafter, they parted
ways and Castro gave birth that was adopted by her brother with
the consent of Cardenas.

The baby was brought in the US and in Castro’s earnest desire to

follow her daughter wanted to put in order her marital status
before leaving for US. She filed a petition seeking a declaration
for the nullity of her marriage. Her lawyer then found out that
there was no marriage license issued prior to the celebration of
their marriage proven by the certification issued by the Civil
Registrar of Pasig.

ISSUE: Whether or not the documentary and testimonial evidence

resorted to by Castro is sufficient to establish that no marriage
license was issued to the parties prior to the solemnization of their
marriage.

HELD:

The court affirmed the decision of CA that the certification issued

by the Civil Registrar unaccompanied by any circumstances of
suspicion sufficiently prove that the office did not issue a marriage
license to the contracting parties. Albeit the fact that the
testimony of Castro is not supported by any other witnesses is not a
ground to deny her petition because of the peculiar
circumstances of her case. Furthermore, Cardenas was duly
served with notice of the proceedings, which he chose to ignore.
Under the circumstances of the case, the documentary and
testimonial evidence presented by private respondent Castro
sufficiently established the absence of the subject marriage license.

ENGRACE NIÑAL for Herself and as Guardian ad Litem of the

minors BABYLINE NIÑAL, INGRID NIÑAL, ARCHIE NIÑAL & PEPITO
NIÑAL, JR., petitioners, v. NORMA BAYADOG, respondent.
G.R. No. 133778. March 14, 2000

Facts:

Pepito Niñal was married to Teodulfa Bellones on September 26,

1974. She was shot by Pepito resulting in her death on April 24, 1985.
One year and 8 monthsthereafter, Pepito and respondent Norma
Badayog got married without any marriage license. In lieu thereof,
Pepito and Norma executed an affidavit dated December 11,
1986 stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for
at least five years and were thus exempt from securing a marriage
license. On February 19, 1997, Pepito died in a car accident

After their father’s death, petitioners filed a petition for declaration

of nullity of the marriage of Pepito to Norma alleging that the said
marriage was void for lack of a marriage license. The case was filed
under the assumption that the validity or invalidity of the second
marriage would affect petitioner’s successional rights.
Norma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioners have
no cause of action since they are not among the persons who
could file an action for annulmentof marriage under Article 47 of
the Family Code.

Issues:

(a) Whether or not Pepito and Norma’ living together as husband

and wife for at least five years exempts them from obtaining a
marriage license under Article 34 of the Family Code of the
Philippines.
(b) Whether or not plaintiffs have a cause of action against
defendant in asking for the declaration of the nullity of marriage of
their deceased father, Pepito G. Niñal, with her specially so when
at the time of the filing of this instant suit, their father Pepito G. Niñal
is already dead

Ruling:

(a) On the assumption that Pepito and Norma have lived together
as husband and wife for five years without the benefit of marriage,
that five-year period should be computed on the basis of
cohabitation as “husband and wife” where the only missing factor
is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. In other
words, the five-year common law cohabitation period, which is
counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be
a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the
marriage. The five-year period should be the years immediately
before the day the marriage and it should be a period of
cohabitation characterized by exclusivity—meaning no third party
was involved at any time within the five years, and continuity—that
is, unbroken. Otherwise, if that five-year cohabitation period is
computed without any distinction as to whether the parties were
capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then
the law would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties
to have common law relationships and placing them on the same
footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse.

(b) The Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the
nullity of a marriage. Voidable and void marriages are not identical.
Consequently, void marriages can be questioned even after the
death of either party but voidable marriages can be assailed only
during the lifetime of the parties and not after death of either, in
which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the
marriage had been perfectly valid.

HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO, petitioner, v.

JUDGE ROQUE R. SANCHEZ, respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329. March 8, 2001
Facts:

Complainant Herminia Borja-Manzano avers that she was the

lawful wife of the late David Manzano, having been married to him
on 21 May 1966 in San Gabriel Archangel Parish, Araneta Avenue,
Caloocan City. Four children were born out of that marriage. On 22
March 1993, however, her husband contracted another marriage
with one Luzviminda Payao before respondent Judge. When
respondent Judge solemnized said marriage, he knew or ought to
know that the same was void and bigamous, as the marriage
contract clearly stated that both contracting parties were
“separated.”

Respondent Judge, on the other hand, claims in his Comment that

when he officiated the marriage between Manzano and Payao he
did not know that Manzano was legally married. What he knew was
that the two had been living together as husband and wife for
seven years already without the benefit of marriage, as manifested
in their joint affidavit. According to him, had he known that the late
Manzano was married, he would have advised the latter not to
marry again; otherwise, Manzano could be charged with bigamy.
He then prayed that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit
and for being designed merely to harass him.

The Court Administrator recommended that respondent Judge be

found guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

Respondent Judge alleges that he agreed to solemnize the

marriage in question in accordance with Article 34 of the Family
Code.

Issue:

Is the reason of the respondent Judge in solemnizing the marriage

valid?

Ruling:

No. In Article 34 of the Family Code provides “No license shall be

necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived
together as husband and wife for at least five years and without
any legal impediment to marry each other. Respondent Judge
cannot take refuge on the Joint Affidavit of David Manzano and
Luzviminda Payao stating that they had been cohabiting as
husband and wife for seven years. Just like separation, free and
voluntary cohabitation with another person for at least five years
does not severe the tie of a subsisting previous marriage.
Marital cohabitation for a long period of time between two
individuals who are legally capacitated to marry each other is
merely a ground for exemption from marriage license. It could not
serve as a justification for respondent Judge to solemnize a
subsequent marriage vitiated by the impediment of a prior existing
marriage.

Morigo vs People
Morigo vs. People
GR No. 145226, February 6, 2004

FACTS:

Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates in Bohol. They

lost contacts for a while but after receiving a card from Barrete
and various exchanges of letters, they became sweethearts. They
got married in 1990. Barrete went back to Canada for work and
in 1991 she filed petition for divorce in Ontario Canada, which was
granted. In 1992, Morigo married Lumbago. He subsequently filed
a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity on the ground that
there was no marriage ceremony. Morigo was then charged with
bigamy and moved for a suspension of arraignment since the civil
case pending posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy
case. Morigo pleaded not guilty claiming that his marriage with
Barrete was void ab initio. Petitioner contented he contracted
second marriage in good faith.

ISSUE: Whether Morigo must have filed declaration for the nullity of
his marriage with Barrete before his second marriage in order to
be free from the bigamy case.

HELD:
Morigo’s marriage with Barrete is void ab initio considering that
there was no actual marriage ceremony performed between
them by a solemnizing officer instead they just merely signed a
marriage contract. The petitioner does not need to file
declaration of the nullity of his marriage when he contracted his
second marriage with Lumbago. Hence, he did not commit
bigamy and is acquitted in the case filed.